4 ms·

No, but he did say that having sex with children is sometimes fine. Which is what I said.

Kbelicius 7y ago
> No, but he did say that having sex with children is sometimes fine Can you quote/link those instances since the two statements that you quoted don't say that at all.
- CathedralBorrow 7y ago
  "I am sceptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing." He's rejecting the arguments that pedophilia causes harm to children, because sometimes it's voluntary and therefore isn't harmful. Do I really need to explain how "Pedophilia is sometimes not harmful to children" can be summarized as "Sometimes sex with children is fine"?
  - Kbelicius 7y ago
    > He's rejecting the arguments that pedophilia causes harm to children No, he is not saying that. In that quote that you used he isn't even saying that pedophilia isn't harmful when it is consensual. I'm really interested how you reached that conclusion while reading the same text I'm reading. > Pedophilia is sometimes not harmful to children As far as I can see those are your words and not his. Where does he say that? Besides, not harmful and fine are to completely different things.
    - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
      Edit: No actually I think I can make it clearer. Here's Stallman himself summarizing his own words: > Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. In those words he was saying that in some cases there is nothing wrong with an adult having sex with a child. So I guess what's left is whether "fine" and "nothing wrong with" are equivalent.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - Kbelicius 7y ago
        > No actually I think I can make it clearer. Here's Stallman himself summarizing his own words That is not making it clearer. First, I was interested in how you interpreted the quote you used as you did. This doesn't make it clearer. Secondly, I don't know if the quote you are using now is referencing the firs quote or something else. I suspect that you do not either. Also it seems that you have some axe to grind against the man. Here is the full quote: >> Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. >> Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why. > In those words he was saying that in some cases there is nothing wrong with an adult having sex with a child. We are not talking about those words, are we?
        CathedralBorrow 7y ago
        Ok let's just clear this up once and for all because we're in some deep thread spiral here. Here's where it all started: > Me: "No, but he did say that having sex with children is sometimes fine" > You: "Can you quote/link those instances since the two statements that you quoted don't say that at all." Here is a statement from Stallman himself summarizing his own words: "Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it." So he said himself that what he was saying back then was that in some instances there is nothing wrong with sex between an adult and a child. This is my answer to your original question. He explained it himself.
        sergioj97 7y ago
        At this point of the conversation, your rejectal to accept that "Paedophilia is sometimes not harmful to children" effectively means "Paedophilia isn't always wrong" or "Paedophilia is sometimes fine/ok" (understanding that what could be wrong about Paedophilia is precisely the possible harmful effects for the children involved) is starting to look malicious. Just to be clear, I agree with everything that's being said in this article. I can't understand how some people read Stallman's words and understand the exact opposite of what he is saying. But I find equally incomprehensible how can you read that quote and still need an explanation on how one thing implies the other.
- mirimir 7y ago
  I believe that he said that children having sex together is OK. Not adults having sex with children. That's not OK. I mean, when I was 10-12, I engaged in private circle jerks with other boys. And we "played Doctor" with girls. No sex, but feeling and "examinations". And spin the bottle games, for taking off clothes and kissing. And holding our brearh, and squeezing each others chests to pass out.
  - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
    "Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it."
    - mirimir 7y ago
      OK, I'm wrong. As a child, I might well have argued that. But now, I appreciate that children are easily manipulated. So while it's possible that some particular child might have freely chosen to have sex with some particular adult, there's no way to determine that. And so the rule must be that children can't reliably consent. Still, people have the right to say whatever they like. And people also have the right to vilify them for it. And so, recursively, ad infinitum.

> No, but he did say that having sex with children is sometimes fine Can you quote/link those instances since the two statements that you quoted don't say that at all.

CathedralBorrow 7y ago
"I am sceptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing." He's rejecting the arguments that pedophilia causes harm to children, because sometimes it's voluntary and therefore isn't harmful. Do I really need to explain how "Pedophilia is sometimes not harmful to children" can be summarized as "Sometimes sex with children is fine"?
- Kbelicius 7y ago
  > He's rejecting the arguments that pedophilia causes harm to children No, he is not saying that. In that quote that you used he isn't even saying that pedophilia isn't harmful when it is consensual. I'm really interested how you reached that conclusion while reading the same text I'm reading. > Pedophilia is sometimes not harmful to children As far as I can see those are your words and not his. Where does he say that? Besides, not harmful and fine are to completely different things.
  - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
    Edit: No actually I think I can make it clearer. Here's Stallman himself summarizing his own words: > Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. In those words he was saying that in some cases there is nothing wrong with an adult having sex with a child. So I guess what's left is whether "fine" and "nothing wrong with" are equivalent.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - Kbelicius 7y ago
      > No actually I think I can make it clearer. Here's Stallman himself summarizing his own words That is not making it clearer. First, I was interested in how you interpreted the quote you used as you did. This doesn't make it clearer. Secondly, I don't know if the quote you are using now is referencing the firs quote or something else. I suspect that you do not either. Also it seems that you have some axe to grind against the man. Here is the full quote: >> Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. >> Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why. > In those words he was saying that in some cases there is nothing wrong with an adult having sex with a child. We are not talking about those words, are we?
      - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
        Ok let's just clear this up once and for all because we're in some deep thread spiral here. Here's where it all started: > Me: "No, but he did say that having sex with children is sometimes fine" > You: "Can you quote/link those instances since the two statements that you quoted don't say that at all." Here is a statement from Stallman himself summarizing his own words: "Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it." So he said himself that what he was saying back then was that in some instances there is nothing wrong with sex between an adult and a child. This is my answer to your original question. He explained it himself.
      - sergioj97 7y ago
        At this point of the conversation, your rejectal to accept that "Paedophilia is sometimes not harmful to children" effectively means "Paedophilia isn't always wrong" or "Paedophilia is sometimes fine/ok" (understanding that what could be wrong about Paedophilia is precisely the possible harmful effects for the children involved) is starting to look malicious. Just to be clear, I agree with everything that's being said in this article. I can't understand how some people read Stallman's words and understand the exact opposite of what he is saying. But I find equally incomprehensible how can you read that quote and still need an explanation on how one thing implies the other.
mirimir 7y ago
I believe that he said that children having sex together is OK. Not adults having sex with children. That's not OK. I mean, when I was 10-12, I engaged in private circle jerks with other boys. And we "played Doctor" with girls. No sex, but feeling and "examinations". And spin the bottle games, for taking off clothes and kissing. And holding our brearh, and squeezing each others chests to pass out.
- CathedralBorrow 7y ago
  "Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it."
  - mirimir 7y ago
    OK, I'm wrong. As a child, I might well have argued that. But now, I appreciate that children are easily manipulated. So while it's possible that some particular child might have freely chosen to have sex with some particular adult, there's no way to determine that. And so the rule must be that children can't reliably consent. Still, people have the right to say whatever they like. And people also have the right to vilify them for it. And so, recursively, ad infinitum.